Jesus walked on water, calmed storms, and healed people, but did you know he could ride two donkeys at the same time?
That's what Matthew tells us in his version of Jesus' life (Mt 21). In preparation for his final entry into Jerusalem, he records Jesus instructing his closest friends to go into a village and find a "donkey, and a colt with her and bring them to me."
They bring the two animals to Jesus, throw their jackets on both animals and then Jesus hops on both of them! Matthew tells us Jesus did this to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, "Tell the daughter of Zion (Jerusalem): Look your king is coming to you, humble and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey" (Is 62.11, Zech 9.9).
The other gospels only have Jesus riding on the colt and make no mention of two animals, so why would Matthew tell the story this way? It is most likely because he saw Jesus as the literal fulfillment of the words from Zechariah.
He is so serious about rooting these events in the authoritative Hebrew scriptures, that he chooses to ignore the poetic force of the passage and instead interprets it literally.
Mentioning the smaller donkey after the first is a way of strongly emphasizing the humility and peacefulness of the one riding the animal: "Your king is so humble and peaceful, that he rides on a donkey...not just a donkey, but a baby donkey."
Jesus rode into Jerusalem being touted by his followers as the triumphant deliverer of Israel, and Matthew more than any of the other gospels presents the strongest contrast between Jesus and the rulers of the day.
Jesus rides into Jerusalem on two animals, struggling to keep his balance, on his way to inaugurate a revolution of peace. In this revolution people lay down their lives instead of taking them, and what could be a more brilliant picture of their peaceful founder than that.
12 comments:
Brandon,
You always get me thinking.
This caused quite a discussion tonight around the dinner table! So of course I had to dig around for a little more info. I went to the netbible.org to see what it had for a translation on this passage. Not a lot of help.I did find this though,the custom called angaria allowed the impressment of animals for service to a significant figure.
It seems that there may still be some discussion with the translation on what "them" means, as shown in this interesting article I found on the Apologetic's Press.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=773
Thanks for getting/keeping my wheels turning.
Matthew interpreting that passage literally is so interesting - it is a good question when do you follow the spirit of the law and when you do you follow the letter of the law?
I love how anti-triumphant Jesus is, and how ultimately he is very triumphant.
Awesome!
Hey Mark, I checked out the link - those arguments are interesting but I would say that the most natural reading (and one that fits Matthew's practice of rooting Jesus' life in the OT) is the dual donkey.
Matthew used Mark as a source and so intentionally included the OT quote and changed the Greek of Mark to fit the two animals poetically spoken of in Zech.
The problem with the article, and the inerrantist position in general, is that it places a burden on the text that the Bible never asks for, nor even alludes to.
Sounds like the dinner time conversations were fruitful!
Charlie, I am so much more principally driven than rule. After all, rules exist to support principals. What do you think?
Thanks Chelsea!
Thanks Brandon for your reply.
Yes, great dinner conversation and exactly why I read your blog. Keeps me thinking and continually learning and stretching my mind.
I realize I may have a ways to go in getting a handle on some of this theology stuff,so bear with me.
I need to get cracking on a couple degrees....Heh, Heh!
You're welcome Mark. It's stretching stuff. Most of us were presented with doctrine and not inspired Scripture and passages like these make the hairs on the back of our necks stand up!
But it is the Bible that is inspired and not our doctrines about it. I find that as I shift my conception of what I think the Bible says, to what it actually says, and then build my theology on that, the text and I get along much better.
It is very challenging though, bc the questions I want to ask are: well what actually happened?! Did he ride one donkey or two?!
But Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not biographies, they are gospels. Gospels are much more than biographies as they tell us what the historical events mean.
You might enjoy reading up on the ipsissima verba vs. ipsissima vox argument. Basically a fancy way of asking: do we have the actual words of Jesus (verba) or do we have the voice of Jesus (vox)?
In other words, if Jesus spoke Aramaic and just about all his words we have recorded in the Gospels are in Greek, should we be more comfortable with having the spirit of what Jesus would say instead of having the exact words?
Again, these are more academic questions and are best for those in a place ready to engage them. Discernment on when and where to have these conversations is necessary as they shake the foundations of our understanding of theology.
In the end I take tremendous comfort in the idea that I know not fully, but I am fully known (1 Cor 13.12).
Thanks for your comments!
Ok, I'm following along here. But one of the questions I ask is - Would riding two donkeys be in the character of Christ? Would he really do something like that?
I am inclined to say no. Jesus didn't do "stunts." Riding on two donkeys seems like a stunt to me with no immediate purpose other than to fulfill a prophesy that could have been fulfilled numerous other ways.
At any time he could have ridden one or the other but both? I tend to think not.
Any thoughts?
Hey Debbie, Jesus only rode one one donkey. Matthew presents what Jesus did as "fulfilling" what was said in the OT.
So he read the events in Mark, heard the stories that were faithfully passed on by the church, and had the Spirit guide him as he wrote about the life of Jesus. He used a very common Jewish technique of presenting the story as connected as possible with the authoritative Scriptures.
Kinda different than how we usually read the Bible and think about Jesus' life, but a very familiar practice in the 1st century.
I think this is a classic case of mis-communication here because you wrote:
"Jesus rides into Jerusalem on two animals, struggling to keep his balance, on his way to inaugurate a revolution of peace."
I read that to say - if someone is riding TWO animals and struggling to keep their balance, then they are riding both animals at the same time. (from other's comments I think they read it this way too.)
This event is VERY important in the time line of Jesus' life. When you wrote:
"Mentioning the smaller donkey after the first is a way of strongly emphasizing the humility and peacefulness of the one riding the animal: "Your king is so humble and peaceful, that he rides on a donkey...not just a donkey, but a baby donkey."
You hit the nail on the head. When you wrote the last bit I think you missed the nail.
We probably don't know one another well enough to infer intent, so let me be clear by stating that I love what you have to say and think you have great insight.
That is all. ;)
Hi Debbie, I think of it this way: Mark, Luke, and John state Jesus rode one animal, which is most likely what historically happened.
Matthew was the only one to quote directly from the Zech text (John mentions it but changes the language to be only one animal), and thus has Jesus on two animals.
My language is confusing, but when I am writing about Jesus awkwardly riding on two animals, and the power that image has in contrast to the rulers of the day, I am recognizing the literary function of the text, not the historical details of the event.
If we are asking about what actually happened, in every detail (a very western question), we would be best to look to Mark, Luke, John, i.e. one animal.
But God gave us Matt too and how cool is it that Matt presents us with a deeply theological, and incredibly subversive political statement when he paints his picture of the event?!
We needn't worry about the historicity of the event: it happened. But how it happened, in every detail, is not the function of the gospel accounts. They, by the Spirit's influence, present us with stories that may be different in some, or many ways - a detail that adds to their beauty, their veracity, and their applicability.
Post a Comment